But I agree with this. The external "evidence" is not to be depended upon if it differs with Revelation's own internal evidence for when it was written. After all, that is the entire purpose of this post - to deduce the date of Revelation's composition from the language of the book itself (and also comparing Revelation to other scriptures).
Except you have invented/interpretted Revelation beyond what it actually says to appear to be internal evidence.
Tradition is immaterial - especially when there is written historical evidence that the persecution of the saints under Domitian has subsequently been greatly exaggerated in our time.
Um, he exiled his own daughter because she became a Christian. You understand that he preferred exile, right? Nero just outright executed Christians, and did not prefer exile. Again, there is a tradition that says Nero martyred John.
Eusebius also was not inspired in his understanding. And "Against Heresies" written originally in Greek was missing the inserted word "That" or "It" which was seen almost in Domitian's day. It was the LATIN TRANSLATORS who, at their own discretion, inserted those words into Irenaeus's writings. Irenaeus's original writing in Greek is ambiguous on this point. Irenaeus's intended meaning was that "HE" (John) was seen almost in their day, towards the end of Domitian's reign, and could have pronounced the name of the Antichrist if he had wished to make that known. We can know this is what Irenaeus intended to say, because he wrote in the same context about those "ancient copies" of Revelation that existed at that point.
There are a few things you don't seem to be understanding. Eusebius' native language was what Irenaeus wrote in. Eusebius was also a scholar, which means he knew his language well. He had no trouble understanding what Irenaeus wrote. He didn't need a dictionary or a book on grammer rules. It was his language. He did not say it was "that", as those translators say that Irenaues intended. Eusebius said it was "it". Not "he". Not "she". Irenaeus was writing about it, which goes back to the revelation.
You are totally misunderstanding this point. You can't have Revelation being originally written for the first time by John "almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" and also at the same time having "ancient copies" of Revelation in existence. These two statements would completely contradict each other. Why is this concept so difficult for you?
Actually, you are misunderstanding. You don't understand what it means to say "ancient copies". He is speaking of COPIES. Every copy hand written by a scribe (which is all of them except the one single original written by John) is a generation. So, if we are conservative and say that scribes made, I don't know, 10 copies a year (I'm sure they made more), then by the time we get to Irenaeus, there are more than 600 generations between the text he is holding, and the original. When you talk about age and manuscripts, you need to look beyond years, and consider how many generations of copies there are between the one you have and the original. I'm pretty sure if there are 600 distinct generations, then the first few generations would be considered ancient. Who knows how different the text you are holding is from the original? I mean, if you go back just a few generations, it MAY be a perfect match, but even then, one can't be sure until one actually sees it. It's not like today, where one makes exact duplicates in huge batches, where 1 million copies may represent ONE generation. So until you understand the whole depth of the situation, and stop thinking as one of the kinkos generation, you aren't going to understand what Irenaeus is saying. He is saying that he went back multiple generations to the earliest copies (and they were ancient in generational age) that he could find, just to see if at any time the manuscript said 616 instead of 666, showing a scribal error.
The part about Domitian has to do with John knowing who the beast is, with the beast being alive at the time, and telling people who that is. (Since God told him to write to tell people what he saw. He chose apocalyptic for political reasons some say, but being out in public and being able to speak to people one on one, there is no longer any restraint on him not telling them exactly who it is. And Irenaeus is saying that he has spoken to people who knew John in those days, who are telling him that John did not tell anyone who the beast was. The assumption is that it is because the beast had not been born yet, so no one would know who it is if John said who it was. Because of this, John gave the number of his name so that people, and future generations, would have that to go by when considering who the beast is.
The understanding is that Domitian exiled John (his preferred method of punishment) as he also did with his own Christian daughter. After Domitian was dead and done away with, the senate absolved all those exiled by Domitian of their crimes, and allowed them to return. They weren't unexiled because Domitian was gone, but because the Senate undid what Domitian had done. If Nero had exiled John, then John would have never returned from exile, because the senate did not absolve those exiled by Nero. They wanted to erase Domitian from history.
And why would you want to hang all of your eschatology on Irenaeus anyway, who falsely claimed that Christ was crucified when He was in his 50's? He also wrote in "Against Heresies 2" that the disciples had preached that Jesus was an old man when he suffered. We know this to be incorrect, because Luke gives us Christ's age as being in his 30's when He was crucified.
Except that isn't what he was saying. He believed that Jesus was older, and the reason be believed that is that Jesus was supposed to be the savior of all men, not just young men. How could Jesus face the temptations of older men and defeat them if He wasn't an older man? That was his reasoning. Can you give a verse that says that Jesus was in His thirties? I mean, from what I heard, no one is sure exactly how old Jesus was outside of what we traditionally believe. (I agree with tradition, however, considering how fluid the date of His birth is, among other things, who knows how many years that could change things? For instance, let's say Jesus was born before 0AD given the Herod who was alive when He was born. With Pilate, He could have been crucified at any time all the way up to 36AD. He could have been 40 or older, depending on when He was born, and when He was actually crucified. All I am saying is that there is a lot we do not know. Just note that I am not changing the possible end date that is held by tradition. (During Pilate and Tiberius time.)
Irenaeus was born after John died, but close enough that there would still be people alive who knew and spoke with John. (Such as Polycarp, who was one of John's disciples. Irenaeus was one of Polycarp's students/disciples.) Now some believe that Peter was the only disciple who was at least 18 years of age when Jesus was 30. How did they decide this? Well, when Jesus went to pay the temple tax, which is paid by all who are over 18, only Jesus and Peter paid.
Irenaeus is to be taken with a grain of salt, as is Eusebius as well. Neither of these men remembered that Paul in 2 Thess. 2 says he had already told the Thessalonians who The Antichrist was, and who was then restraining him from being manifested openly. The Antichrist then being restrained in Paul's days was NOT Nero the emperor. You and I probably agree on that statement at least.
The Antichrist will be someone who is under the dominion of satan. It won't be satan himself. Don't forget that some of the early church believed that the one that restrained the Antichrist was Rome. Considering how early this belief dates, they could have heard it from one of those to whom Paul said that they know because he told them, or heard it from someone only a generation or a few from the ones who heard it and may very well have told someone else.
